can't see problem yet

can anyone, please, see, and then tell me, why the test site (URL below) loads so slowly, I thought the images were all reasonably sized and progressive but I must be wrong! Thanx

http://www.jonspain.com/daveygrahamtrial/

Jon

can anyone, please, see, and then tell me, why the test site (URL below) loads so slowly, I thought the images were all reasonably sized and progressive but I must be wrong! Thanx

http://www.jonspain.com/daveygrahamtrial/

Jon

Sorry if this is blunt, but posting a site with right clicking disabled and a request like that is a slap in the face to the people you're asking for help! Trying to disable right-clicking is pointless because there are 1001 ways to get round it, but have you ever considered the legitimate reasons someone might have for right clicking? Like opening a link in a new window or (dare I suggest it?) checking the size of your images because you asked?

Sure, I might be able to offer some advice here, but I can't be bothered to work round the restrictions you've imposed so I'm not going to!

Peter

Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?

and here they are, you are so right. Those restrictions came by, well, stupidity, and would have been removed at the end, I think. So I shall resubmit and crave indulgence for anothewr look

Jon

Fine on my 56k dialup.

www.bricksandbrass.co.uk

as the site has had the protection stripped and I've reduced the size of one image. Thanx, Simon, for your check, I'm on 56K dialup and it's taking more time than I expect and I now wonder if that's because I'm using NS4.7!

Well, Opera 6.04 was no faster but it has told me that the front page is 124K and that there are 28 images, which confuses me. When an image is tiled, does each tile count as a separate download? the same with buttons, maybe?

Jon

Sorry about the rant, Jon, but here's something a little more constructive...

First of all, a tiled image counts as a single image, full stop, and a simple rollover button like most of yours as two (obviously!). But your images are actually not as well-optimised as they could be because they're not obvious JPEG material. You could save *some* bytes for almost everything except Guitar_K.jpg (which can obviously take being lower res. as the background) by remaking them as 256 colour GIFs or PNGs and *a lot of* bytes by remaking them as 16 colour GIFs or PNGs. Given the nature of the material, I can't see the disadvantage, but check these out and see for yourself:

http://www.jonspain.com/daveygrahamt..._NBanner_K.jpg
(Your image, 15364 bytes)

http://www.petestack.com/forum/jsbanner256.gif
(256 colour GIF, 9052 bytes)

http://www.petestack.com/forum/jsbanner16.gif
(16 colour GIF, 4500 bytes)

http://www.jonspain.com/daveygrahamt..._NButton_L.jpg
(Your image, 6346 bytes)

http://www.petestack.com/forum/jsdiscography256.gif
(256 colour GIF, 4570 bytes)

http://www.petestack.com/forum/jsdiscography16.gif
(16 colour GIF, 1180 bytes)

Of course they'd be all the better looking for not having been converted from the JPEGs first. And I'd go for PNGs, which should come out smaller yet, but some folk still seem to be sadly wary of them!

As for being forgiven... but of course (so long as you don't do it again)! http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

But I can't see why you ever tried the right-click disabling in the first place. Given that most of the world uses Windows and context-sensitive right-click menus are at the core of the Windows interface, it just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, can you imagine Google with right-clicks disabled? So pointless too, because it's not real protection, it's just irritating and I have to be honest and tell you I don't stay with any site that does it!

Oh, and before I forget, I think 'welcome' might suit the home page better than 'wecome'! http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Peter

Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?

[This message was edited by Peter Duggan on January 27, 2003 at 18:07.]

PS 7 'yellow' buttons with 2 rollover states (14) + 2 'yellow/blue' buttons with 4 rollover states (8) + 2 small buttons + 1 'banner', 1 'cartoon' graphic, 1 background and 1 spacer GIF = 28 images (QED)!

Peter

Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?

how I got it so wrong. Many thanx, Peter, I really appreciate the help.

Secondly, the "protection" came from having set up a few technical sites where I didn't want anyone else easily using the material without asking me. This is not intended to be that sort of site and the no-right-click and no-print were misplaced.

Back to first, I had simply not understood what NetObjects does with the basic images. Although I made sure that the images being used for buttons and banners were smallish, NOF rebuilds the images and the size expands. So, not having found an internal option yet (I shall approach the NOF forum), I guess I shall have to compress the images after the site has been generated. For batch processing, I shall use "xat".

Thanx again, I am learning

Jon

Sorry, a further question, which is what are you all using? Peter, were you using XX or PS, maybe? Perhaps I'm expecting too much but I thought the attached "image" could come down a long way below 15K! Or am I just too optimistic? In "xat", I can lose just a miserable 8% but there are only two colours!

Jon

I use XX for most of my optimising because I find (unlike some) I can usually make my JPEGs smaller and better-looking that way and I appreciate the selection of GIF and PNG export controls.

I've just tried re-exporting your GIF from XX and come up with the following observations:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>It only needs 5 colours to export at 15249 bytes using the 256 colour optimised palette.<LI>You can reduce that to 13972 bytes with the same 5 colours in the 16 colour optimised palette.<LI>You can get that down to 13907 bytes using the WebSnap optimised palette. It appears to be one of the anti-aliasing colours (and not one of the two main colours) that's being changed here.<LI>Swapping the 16 colour WebSnap optimised GIF for the same in PNG knocks that down to 12718 bytes.<LI>Further manual reductions in the number of colours don't appear to bring any improvements in this case.[/list]IMHO, you won't do much better than that, but I'd be delighted for someone to prove me wrong!

Peter

Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?

I use a freeware utility that cleans jpegs of their extraneous code, often resulting in files sizes 2-3k smaller. If your graphic is 10k, you can often reduce it to 7-8k, a substantial savings if you have a lot of small graphics.

Rainbow Software

http://talkgraphics.infopop.net/1/Op...&ul=1101906325
Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll

to the help received, which i do appreciate, particularly a rare second chance. The image was just too large in pixels so I'm going to cut them all down which means more pages, implying more banners to reduce afterwards. But I have certainly learned from this, thanx for that too

Jon